Re: Video editing in Linux?

From: SjT (NOT_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/05/04 

Date: Fri, 05 Nov 2004 10:34:51 GMT

Ian Molton <spyro@f2s.com> Kissed me, Licked me, then left me a note:

>> But you're being a tad pedantic here, as i was referring to making
>> calls in the original text, you know exactly what i meant.
>
>I know what you think you meant, but my point was that your use of the
>terminology was clumsy, indicating you are likely not an expert in that
>field.

I will admit i'm not an expect when it comes to the compiling side of
things, probably due to coming from basic programming languages, i
picked the visual.net package because the compiling was virtually all
taken care off, i did use the dev IDE (I cant remember the exact name)
which was based on a linux compiler i beleive?! and i had a few
problems getting the opengl libraries to compile correctly so walked
away defeated! :D

>to avoid confusion pleas call C++, er, C++. (not cpp)

Sorry, most places i look for help are labelled cpp to avoid the +'s
being used as boolean strings when searching, so i just refere to it
as that myself.

>Just today I had over 600 connections on a single port here (toying with
>gtk-gnutella).

But i expect that was using a port in the 7001-7009 range?

>Excuse me? the Archimedes had 8 channel fully synthesised *logarithmic*
>stereo sound with around 32 stereo positions minimum (before you did
>extra work in software - that was the hardwares capability).
>
>The amiga had four linear 8 bit channels with fewer stereo positions.

Sorry, i didn't realise you was talking sound 'quality' i thought you
meant the music was of better quality.. i.e. better artisticly. I
never really heard the archimedes sound as the ones downstairs weren't
allowed the speakers on.

>Rubbish. computing was massive already when doom came out and that
>predated win95.

It was massive at the time yeah, but in comparison it's nothing by
todays standards.

>> The same with graphics cards, now you had an OS that would take
>> advantage of the hardware, in fact the jump from Win 3.1 was massive.
>
>cobblers.

I don't mean the technology i mean the useability, plug and play was
the big buzz word and it invited people to a ride of pure hell! :D

>> The new breed of games at that time were all made possible due to MS
>> developing DirectX.
>
>Rubbish. Doom and Quake (initially) used some extremely well coded FULLY
>SOFTWARE rendering. Quake later used OpenGL and THEN DirectX.

Yeah, but the majority of windows based games were using the Directx
drivers.

>Well if you must insist on buying PACEs overpriced junk...

Pfft.. PACE hater :PPPP

>> Gaming pushes hardware the most imo, and windows provided a gaming
>> platform which you could customise, and that involved buying new
>> hardware.
>
>Gaming pushes 3D video most. as evidence look at the XBOX - a 733MHz
>Celeron and plays all the latest games fine...

No windows overhead though, in fact only the required components are
loaded in, add to that a pretty good GFX Card that only has to render
around the 800x600 mark and it flies along.

With windows you are forced into upgrading CPU, Memory AND Video card
every year if you're really into your games.

>but you may be interested to know that most (probably all) DSL modems,
>and in fact the equipment that handles 'traditional' modems at the ISP
>end, use DSPs that execute software to process the line signal from/to
>analogue/digital. so much for the 'all hardware' solution eh?

I had a shock when connecting to my wireless provider through PPPoE, i
was getting *** performance running straight in through my network
card into XP, i bought a router and it was clearly so much better..
The ISP hasn't a clue why and i wondered then whether there was some
processing that XP was screwing up on.

Never found out the answer, but it works.. Which is generally how i
work, trial and error, you are probably more the sort who would sit
down and investigate why it didnt work and then sort it.

>You know I do ;-) (actually the vast quantity of morons and "businesses"
>on the net I blame more, but...)

But can you blame them for using such a standard platform?! I would be
*** scared to switch over to openoffice and a linux server here, i
would love to do it to see how it compares, but things like
compatibility issues with other companies would scare me to death.

How do you stand using open office in a company, is there a fund which
you can pay into if you feel the need?

>> We recommend building from source on SuSE -End Quote-
>
>As mentioned elsewhere then, perhaps you should try a different distro.
>I appreciate that this of course isnt a solution available to everyone,
>so...

Yeah, the thing is i paid for SuSE and so want to use it.. I know
thats a silly thing to be saying, but it would feel a waste otherwise
and i can't see why i should have problems with that over any other
distro as it's all linux isnt it?

What i mean is that you recommend trying another Distro, but for what
i gain with one i lose with the other, surely?

To start with i only really want to play around to get a feel of
whether i like it and could do what i want, then at a later date i
would be looking at distro's with much more knowledge and make the
leap of faith if i like.

>> In order to build Rosegarden-4, you will need
>> a Unix-like operating system (most obviously Linux) - GOT
>
>Duh... you need an OS :-)

I did put - GOT on the end there! :D

>> Build with ALSA 0.9 or better for sound - EEK?!
>
>Perhaps you should have googled a little.
>ALSA == Advanced Linux Sound Architecture. Its the replacement for OSS
>(Open Sound System) that linux used to use for audio.

So is that a program or a driver or some kind of wrapper?

>> and LADSPA - *CRIES*
>
>Same again, realtime DSP stuff. google would have told you this. I would
>guess it will build using one or the other or both of JACK or LADSPA, bu
>t that is a guess. I havent ever built it.

Yeah i did google it, but i'm totally lost. You must appreciate that
this is an absolute world of difference from windows. I don't know
how far up the beginner->advanced ladder this *** is? Maybe i'm
jumping in too high?! I just want to try out audio apps though..

>> I'm not digging into linux here, but whats up with the windows method
>> of install one driver and thats it?
>
>Rosegarden isnt a driver. and windows software depends on DLLs etc.
>(LADSPA and JACK are 'sort of' like DLLs.)

Yeah thats what i mean, in windows i would install the ASIO driver for
my soundcard (Which is the equivalent of LADSPA and JACK) and then
Cubase (Rosegarden).

But this appears more complicated.. it may not be in reality, just
thought i'd check her first to make sure i wasn't running into a big
pit full of sharp knives.

>> 3. A quick visit to the ALSA Soundcard Matrix shows me that my card is
>> supported (woopee!): http://tinyurl.com/5y7b2
>
>emu10k1 - sBlive! ?

Nah i use the EMU10K2 - which is audigy2, but they list it as emu10k1
despite referring to it as the emu10k1, im guessing its just a
mistake.

>not the worlds greatest card but adequate. I used to use one before I
>got my external DAC (on optical SP/DIF or TOSlink if you like). I used
>it for my radio astronomy stuff and its actually got a decent input
>bandwidth - 19.5kHz FM stereo carriers from local radio were easily
>visible in the output of my radio scanner on the line in.

I only use mine for recording music, it's got great ASIO drivers and
great 3rd party support (www.kxproject.com), the sound quality is
pretty good too, i don't use any of optical/digital features, it's
purely line-in, line-out, but the beauty is that i can use VST
Plugings to generate synths and DSP's etc and because i can master it
all within the computer the soundcard never really affects the final
output as it is all rendered internally.

Of course my line-in is subject to not being the greatest, but i'm on
a budget and more interested in the creativity than the actual sound
quality... Which exceeds my speakers and amp probably now.

>> Which totally goes against what people have told me on here when i
>> said i had to compile into the kernel last time i used linux (And
>> infact had me labelled as troll).
>
>You seem to read selectively. the paragraph you quoted says "or build
>them seperately as modules" which is what several people have told you
>here already.

They seem to suggest that compiling into the kernel is the better
option though as there are far more links to that?

>yes this is a potential weak spot, but the programs in use in these
>areas are all very small and extremely closely scrutinised. no known
>holes have been discovered for a good while now.

Would it be possible for you to code a piece of software which could
perform this?

Also, does the software discussed above require to know the root
password? or is it like a one-way ticket straight through, no
authentication needed?

>> That's a good idea actually, but surely it would be more secure if the
>> maintainer was to run the diff file?
>
>Why does it amke a difference who runs diff? as long as the maintainer
>actually reads the output of the diff program there is no problem.

Well you could change the code to fix the problems, run a diff on it,
save the resulting file.

Then, modify the code to add your malicious code and send that file
with the original diff file you made previous?

>Its simpler than that. the linux kernel source code
>(http://www.kernel.org/) contains ALL the officially approved drivers,
>full stop.

Bookmarked! :D

>> I've been thinking about WINE, if i installed that could i read from
>> my NTFS partitions into the linux partitions and vice versa?
>
>wine is about executing windows programs in a windows-a-like ABI (not
>API, althoguh it has that too). it has nothing to do with what
>filesystem you use - you could use EXT2, 3, reiserFS, XFS, NFS, NTFS. no
>matter.

Ok, so it's what i would probably call a windows wrapper? Crude i know
:)

I.e. you run windows executables rather than having a window
displaying a windows machine, i.e. a windows desktop? 

-- 
Playing: FIFA 2005.... Thats it atm
Awaiting: PES4 & HALO2 (Yawn yes i know)